California, home to one-eighth of the American population, has decided to legalize gay marriage.
You'd never know that from the news story. The state legislature approved "rights" for "domestic partnerships," which sounds so boring and normal. If you didn't know better, you'd think it was a business-related issue. The Associated Press reports:
...the bill would give domestic partners the ability to ask for child support and alimony, the right to health coverage under a partner's plan and the ability to make funeral arrangements for a partner.Other provisions would give domestic partners access to family student housing, bereavement and family care leave and exemptions from estate and gift taxes, and in the event of a partner's death, the authority to consent to an autopsy, donate organs and to make funeral arrangements.
It also would prevent courts from forcing a domestic partner to testify against the other partner in a trial, and it would give domestic partners the ability to apply for absentee ballots on a partner's behalf....
Two years ago, the Legislature passed a measure giving domestic partners about a dozen rights previously available only to heterosexual spouses or the next of kin, including the right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, to sue for a partner's wrongful death and to adopt a partner's child.
As the article notes, some people think this bill violates Proposition 22, a ballot intiative enacted in 2000 with 61% of the vote, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. That raises the question, "What marital benefit doesn't this bill provide?" I'm racking my brain. Maybe you could think of one. Seems to me that the legislators have invented a legal relationship, called it "domestic partnership," and attached all of the rights and privileges pertaining to marriage. Since they don't call it "marriage," they aren't circumventing Proposition 22.
It's a cute ploy, however illegal it is. Then again, how often does the Left consider piddly things like "the will of the people" or "the law" when they get in the way of their agenda? Their new slogan should be "Celebrate diversity. Or else."
As a committed federalist, I believe in the Tenth Amendment. I don't like it when federal law usurps a function of the states, and regulating marriage is primarily a state responsibility. But when a few states want to impose gay marriage on all the other states -- over the objections of their own citizens, in California as in Vermont -- then it's time to write the definition of marriage into the Constitution. The Federal Marriage Amendment reads thus:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Draw the line right here, right now. In the 19th century, Catholic immigrants sometimes had to defend their churches by force, facing down violent mobs to protect the houses of God. Physical force isn't called for, but the same kind of moral commitment is.
Don't think, "Gay marriage won't really happen." Abortion happened. Easy divorce happened. Contraceptives for 12-year-olds happened. You don't have to be an alarmist to see that gay marriage will happen if nobody does anything about it.
Here in trendy Cleveland Heights, Ohio, we will be having a city referendum on whether to recognize "domestic partnerships". Some radical gay activists got this issue on the ballot by petition.
The proposed law will allow any two people to register themselves as domestic partners, and get a certificate stating that they are domestic partners. Interestingly, you don't need to be a resident of Cleveland Heights to register your partnership.
Even more interestingly, the law gives no concrete "rights" to the partners, just a piece of paper. So, what's the point?
Last year, our lovely City Council passed an ordinance giving gay and lesbian city employees the same employee benefits as married couples. If newspaper reports are correct, this ordinance was mostly a payoff for campaign contributions from the Gay Democratic Club.
When citizens obtained 5,000 signatures to put the ordinance to a popular vote, the City disqualified the petition on a technicality.
Funny postscript. The ordinance is basically a dead letter. In the past 12 months, guess how many employees have signed up for the new benefit?
A big fat zero.
Fascinating story, Jim. Glad to hear things aren't working out for the partnerships.
Here's one thing to consider, too: how much money will extra health benefits cost the city? Homosexuals can cover their dependents (i.e., children) if they are the parent or guardian. Why can't the other "partner" get insurance on his own?